What happened to OC? - CLOSED Carnage?!
Krazychic

Even Trump's biggest supporters are turning on him

42 posts in this topic

Are you contrasting these points against Clinton and Johnson as well? Or simply just narrowing in on Trump? 

 

- Benghazi happened on her watch. She was Secretary of State, our chief diplomat and the party responsible to ensure the safety of of diplomats and embassies. Repeated the embassy staff and Ambassador Stevens requested increased security at the embassy, their pleads ignored. She then purged herself under oath, lying as to why the CIA Outpost and Embassy had been overrun and why US citizens had been killed and captured by Libyan insurgents, blaming a video. 

 

- Director Comey came out and listed the multitude of violations Clinton committed, as did the Inspector General of the State Department, but AG Lynch refused to pursue charges (Also notice how Bill Clinton visted the DoJ on a Saturday to speak with the AG). There are allegations that her flagrant disregard resulted in the failure of multiple clandestine operations being run by the DoD.

 

- The Clinton Foundation directly benefited from deals Clinton brokered while Secretary of State, one in particular regarding the Russian mining firm "Uranium One", that holds mining contacts for federal lands in Oregon in Harney and Malheur counties. 

 

The list goes on, but I haven't time right now to go down it. 

 

 

 

 

 

Puddin, xvii and Tiamat like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiddy-bits:

When it boils down to it, both candidates are conniving and deceitful in different ways.  Trump disguises his deceit with bombastic rhetoric about his policies that either make no sense or have no chance of actually occurring, but looks out for himself more than any group of people- including the American people as a whole.  His blatant hate speech combined with the sensitivity of a rampaging elephant make poor statesmanship, and, although I don't recall the source, I remember hearing at one point his foreign policy adviser quit because Trump couldn't understand why you shouldn't use nukes if you have them.  Every time I listen to the guy it sounds like I'm listening to someone that needs a few more milligrams on their meds.

 

Hillary directly and indirectly led to a complete and utter failure of security in Benghazi and royally screwed the DoD, essentially botching her responsibilities.  There's a host of sources that point to her using her term as Secretary of State for personal gain and the benefit of her "charity organization" the Clinton Foundation.  Her email server was a colossal failure of security in every sense.  Her deceit has the air of someone who thinks they're clever and tries to keep their deceit covered up, but instead has no damn idea what they're doing.  She botches half the things she tries to cover up.

 

Given the choice I'll probably vote Hillary because you know what a thief is going to do, but a madman?  Trump is the very definition of "wild card" in politics.  We've had presidents scheme and presidents that were awful at their job before, and consequently got nothing done, but we've never had Andrew Jackson with nukes.  Nevermind that it requires a sign-off to use a nuclear device; I have no doubt in my mind that Trump could find the necessary signatures.

 

Ramble, ramble.  That's my impressions of the current political shitstorm.

Edited by Tiamat
Puddin, Kvasir and WaeV like this

ZFkXnuW.png External link

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tiamat said:

When it boils down to it, both candidates are conniving and deceitful in different ways.

Indeed.

Image result for both candidates suck 

Edited by Puddin
pic
Kvasir and Tiamat like this

h2_zpsdpjizr8c.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean sure, let's contrast with Clinton.

 

I'm rather inoculated against criticism against Clinton because I've been hearing blow-out-of-proportion crap about her since forever ago, and her detractors have a long history of exaggeration and downright witchhunting.

 

Remember that time she said a rather harmless quote about being career-driven, and it was taken wildly out of context? Way back when she was merely the first lady.

 

"Looking Back at Hillary’s First 100 Days as First Lady", Vanity Fair, 1993.

Quote

On March 16, she gives one of many teas in the White House, this one for 10 First Ladies from the Western Hemisphere. The event recalls the exchange she had with Jerry Brown during the campaign. When he attacked her law practice as a conflict of interest in a state where her husband was governor, she shot back, “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas.” Less reported was her next sentence: “The work that I have done . . . has been aimed . . . to assure that women can make the choices . . . whether it’s full-time career, full-time motherhood, or some combination.”

Clearly she's a rabid ultra-feminist who heaps scorn upon the lowly homemakers. /s

 

But by God, nobody would shut the hell up until she baked some damned cookies. So bake them she did.

ap_9312220412_wide-7e7d9a80a82fe0a121bec

 

 

I feel like Hillary is... not exactly shy, but wary of the media given that they've never passed up an opportunity to drag her through the coals. Even by 1993, commentary like this was relevant:

Quote

Vanity Fair said:


As always in the case of wild rumors, there is no evidence to support them and no way to disprove them. But in the absence of good stories to push out the bad, they persist. As Hillary concentrates on the fine print of policy, she seems to be ignoring the fact that politics is as much a function of perception as it is of merit. She embraces those demands that engage her brain, and seems wary of those that might take a chunk of her soul. But for the next four years, the country will be grabbing for everything it can get, and she will have to strike a balance between how much she must give and how much she can hold back.


For all their obvious differences, Barbara Bush has seemed to actually like Hillary since the day in November they met at the South Portico of the White House for a tour of the private family quarters. She was so impressed with Hillary, in fact, that afterward she gushed over the woman whom Republicans had been portraying as Hilla the Hun. Mrs. Bush, who hates the press herself, described Hillary leaning forward, teacup in hand, to ask her what to do about all those pesky reporters. She advised Hillary to ignore them except to correct mistakes where friends are concerned. Hillary takes the “ignore them” part of the advice seriously, avoiding scores of interview requests and inviting only local press into the East Wing.

 

Benghazi was regrettable, and she's owned up to it. I'm not sure what more people want out of her. I don't care what your career is, if you've been working for a couple decades you are going to make a monumental mistake at some point. I don't think anyone is accusing her of outright malice. Obviously she doesn't want US soldiers to die.

 

Note that we've wasted spent over $7 million taxpayer dollars on 13 reports, almost two-thousand written pages, and four public hearings. Despite all this, zero investigations found any official wrongdoing. Almost smells like a witchhunt. <_<http://benghazicommittee.com/benghazi-by-the-numbers/

 

As for the emails, Director Comey found that she was not criminally negligent. If she was still Secretary of State when this was discovered, she may have been fired and lost her security clearance. But she would not have been arrested. I realize that the lack of being able to fire her over this leaves people unsatisfied, but jail is not the answer.

Quote

Wall Street Journal said:

 

Retired Gen. David Petraeus, the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, was sentenced to probation in 2015 for sharing classified information with his biographer while he was having an affair with her.

 

Legal experts drew distinctions between the situations involving Mrs. Clinton and those involving Gen. Petraeus and others. They cited Mrs. Clinton as saying she didn’t know the material at issue was classified. They also said she didn’t knowingly show the material to anyone who wasn’t cleared to see it.

 

Under a 1994 federal law, governmental officials can face as much as year in prison for removing and retaining classified documents or material without authorization. Prosecutors must show that the official knowingly removed the information and intended to store it at an unauthorized location.

 

The law was used to prosecute Gen. Petraeus, who admitted sharing his schedule and personal notes from his time as commander of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan with his biographer. The notes contained classified information about the identities of covert officers, secret operations and military strategy.

The difference being that she was trying to make her job easier and not willingly leaking anything.

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/fbis-hillary-clinton-decision-draws-comparisons-to-past-prosecutions-1467762367

 

I like this person's answer on Quora:

Quote

Dana H. Shultz said:

 

I am not inclined to give Hillary Clinton a free pass with respect to this matter.


She created a private email server to maintain control over her email messages - which would have been fine if those messages were only hers, but the messages in question belonged to the U.S. government. Accordingly, what she did was flat-out wrong, and she certainly should have known it was wrong.


However, “wrong” does not necessarily mean “criminal”. And that seems to fit in with the Clintons’ M.O.: Do things that are to your personal advantage but inappropriate, but not so inappropriate as to result in criminal prosecution.


People are probably tired of the constant reminders that Colin Powell did a very similar thing... although not as bad I guess.

 

People are probably tired of the constant reminders that Colin Powell did a very similar thing... although not as bad I guess.

Quote

The Intercept said:


The emails show Powell regularly corresponding with reporters and friends about the Clinton email server scandal, explaining that his situation was different. When Powell arrived at the State Department, the information technology system was badly dated, he argued. And unlike Clinton, Powell never set up a private server. Instead, he used his personal AOL account, on a server maintained by AOL, and used a government computer for classified communications.


“It is no secret that I used a [sic] unclassified personal email account in addition to my classified State computer,’” Powell wrote to the New York Times’s Amy Chozick. He implored the dozens of reporters and producers who emailed him to read his book, “It Worked for Me: In Life and Leadership,” in which he devoted an entire chapter to his efforts to revamp the State Department’s IT system.


The Clinton campaign’s effort to blur the lines between Clinton’s private email server and Powell’s AOL account left Powell deeply frustrated.


“They are going to dick up the legitimate and necessary use of emails with friggin record rules. I saw email more like a telephone than a cable machine,” Powell wrote last year to his business partner Jeffrey Leeds. “As long as the stuff is unclassified. I had a secure State.gov machine. Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris.”

 

https://theintercept.com/2016/09/13/colin-powell-emails/

When talking about Hillary, the words "hubris" and "arrogance" come up a lot. Also "ambition". They're not terribly attractive adjectives, but... They seem a lot less ugly than the qualities Trump has. She doesn't have to be perfect, she just has to suck less.

 

As far as self-dealing and misuse of charitable foundations, we can make direct comparisons:

 

Clinton Foundation:

Quote

Washington Post said:


The Clinton Foundation accepted millions of dollars from seven foreign governments during Hillary Rodham Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, including one donation that violated its ethics agreement with the Obama administration, foundation officials disclosed Wednesday.
[...]
In one instance, foundation officials acknowledged they should have sought approval in 2010 from the State Department ethics office, as required by the agreement for new government donors, before accepting a $500,000 donation from the Algerian government.


The money was given to assist with earthquake relief in Haiti, the foundation said. At the time, Algeria, which has sought a closer relationship with Washington, was spending heavily to lobby the State Department on human rights issues.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-gave-millions-to-foundation-while-clinton-was-at-state-dept/2015/02/25/31937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html

 

Quote

At least 85 of 154 people from private interests who met or had phone conversations scheduled with Clinton while she led the State Department donated to her family charity or pledged commitments to its international programs, according to a review of State Department calendars released so far to The Associated Press. Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million. At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million.

 

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/82df550e1ec646098b434f7d5771f625/many-donors-clinton-foundation-met-her-state

 

So... people gave money to the charity she helps direct before meeting her while she was Secretary of State. Doesn't sound all that great, I agree. But is it linked to anything? Does she actually profit from Clinton Foundation money, or is it just a "my charity donates more than yours" honor pissing contest thing? I've yet to see any evidence that Clinton Foundation cash finds its way into Clinton's actual pockets.

 

Contrast with Trump's charity.

 

Not only did he spend $258,000 of the charity's money to settle his personal lawsuits. He spent ten thousand tax-deductible charity dollars on a goddamn portrait of himself.

 

160920-donald-trump-havi-portrait-featur

Making the world a better place. /s

 

If Hillary had wasted charity money on a self-portrait, you can bet your ass we'd be hearing about it.

 

Quote

New York Post said:

 

Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club owed $120,000 in unpaid fines in 2007 over a flagpole dispute with the town of Palm Beach. In a settlement, town officials agreed to waive the fine for a $100,000 donation to a veterans charity.

 

Trump also wrote a $158,000 check from the Trump Foundation to settle a lawsuit involving his golf course in Westchester.

 

The money went to the namesake foundation of the plaintiff, Martin Greenburg, who filed a lawsuit after hitting a hole-in-one during a 2010 charity benefit and thought he had qualified for a $1 million prize.

 

Legal experts say such payments might violate US charity laws. “The Foundation’s assets are not his; those assets are irrevocably dedicated, by law, to charitable purposes,” said Rosemary Fei, a California-based lawyer specializing in nonprofits.

 

“Yet it appears he has used private foundation assets for his personal benefit or to benefit his companies. That’s classic self-dealing.”

 

Trump also spent $10,000 from the foundation for another portrait of himself at a charity fundraiser in 2014, adding to the $20,000 portrait purchased in 2007, The Washington Post said.

 

http://nypost.com/2016/09/20/trump-spent-charity-money-on-business-fines-portrait-report/

 

tumblr_inline_moa3b5I6RX1qz4rgp.gif

Tiamat and Takka like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I'm not the least bit concerned with the media portrayal of either candidate, that has so little to do with the position. 

 

A corrupt/incompetent individual without any regard for the consequences of their actions has just as much of a chance for catastrophic outcomes, as some as inflammatory as Trump having access to launch codes. Mrs. Clinton botched Benghazi and committed numerous acts that violated federal law. (May I also note Comey's comments in reagrd to prosecution are both unprofessional and unethical, the FBI Director has no bearing over the legal process or determination of who and if someone is prosecuted, that's the AG. The purpose of the FBI is to investigate and provide the evidence it finds to the DoJ where the AG makes a determination...but I can see why AG Lynch had trouble rendering a decision, seeing as how the accused's husband who is a former President visited the AG.) 

 

I'd say more on why intent has no bearing in violations of national security, but I don't have the time or inclination to. 

 

I'd also like to touch on the hyperbole surrounding the idea that Trump could simply launch nukes at will, it's ludicrous and impossible under the inner-workings of the National Command Authority, the requirements for release of nuclear weapons, our nuclear policies, and the posture of our nuclear forces. 

 

In regards to Clinton "owning" up to Benghazi, I've yet to see any official or unofficial statements regarding that, but I could have missed it. 

 

There has been quite a bit of pot stirring concerning Russia under the Obama Administration and I can't see why it wouldn't continue under Hillary. It's well known Trump and Putin have an excellent relationship...but I can't understand why the continued poking and aggressive actions against Russia, who incidentally holds the world's largest nuclear weapon stockpile and maintains nuclear weapons release policy that is far more fluid and aggressive than that of the US.

 

So gentleman (and ladies), before you go making up you minds, keep in mind that the stakes here aren't just about how Presidential someone appears or what the media thinks about them. The world is in a very dangerous place right now, as bad, if not worse than during the Cold War and what we don't need is a shitty President...the chairs are full of fucking shitbirds and the music is about the stop. 

 

 

Puddin and xvii like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiamat has the best tl;dr of the whole thing. Both of the mainstream party candidates suck, for somewhat different reasons.

 

Come November, we're all going to have to hold our noses and vote. God help us all. What a shitty election cycle. I hope 2020 is better.

 

14 minutes ago, Weps said:

In regards to Clinton "owning" up to Benghazi, I've yet to see any official or unofficial statements regarding that, but I could have missed it.

Way back in 2012:

Quote
I take responsibility. I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They're the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/transcript-hillary-clinton-takes-responsibility-benghazi-attack-article-1.1246025

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/10/world/libya-attack-statements/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/22/the-political-fight-over-benghazi-told-in-16-quotes/

Tiamat and Takka like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if there's too much red tape for Trump to start throwing nukes, which I can believe, his aggressive tactics and seemingly random posture switching- to the extent that people preparing to debate him prepare for TWO Trumps- do not seem like qualities I'd want in someone that negotiates with foreign countries.  It makes him look deeply untrustworthy.  Even if he appears serious and well-mannered for now, there's always that lingering thought that the man will likely turn around and go back to insanity the next day, which wouldn't exactly promote good discussion.


ZFkXnuW.png External link

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hqdefault.jpg

 

mfw putin controls trump, shillary and commie cuck and becomes king of east and west

"remember no russians"

Edited by ZION

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Weps said:

The world is in a very dangerous place right now, as bad, if not worse than during the Cold War

XD

better start funding ISIS amirite?

 


 

By now I'd like to see Trump as president just to see what happens. But I'm probably not thinking in the favor of the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.